Re: Teaching compilers backwards?

On 4 Oct 2003 14:47:19 -0400 in comp.compilers, "Rodney M. Bates"
<rbates@southwind.net> wrote:


>Andy Gill wrote:
>
>> Has anyone ever taught compilers backwards? How did it work out?
>>
>> Traditionally, a compiler class starts with lexing, and flows downstream
>> towards register allocation and assembly language generation.
>>
>> I am considering starting a compiler class with assembly language exercises,
>> and having the students build a small compiler from the back, forward.


i.e. from the back to the front?


>Well, it seems like one obvious problem with this is that each
>phase uses as input, the output of the previous phase. And what
>that output is, both its format/syntax, and its deeper semantics, are
>things a compiler course student won't already know. And explaining
>that will considerably overlap just studying the previous phase.


It would seem to be a reasonable approach to teaching students what
the requirements of each previous phase are to allow the following
phase to do its work; perhaps allowing them to develop the
requirements themselves, increasing their understanding; rather than
being given the whole model front to back, trying to implement the
whole shebang, and having to rework everything from front to back if
relevant information is missed.


Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
--
Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
        fake address use address above to reply

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.